Higher Court Allows USCIS to Continue Reviewing and Potentially Revoking Past Immigration Approvals for 40 Nationalities

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asserts that heightened vetting and the ability to revoke immigration statuses for foreign nationals from 40 specific countries are essential national security measures. Conversely, immigrant advocacy organizations argue that freezing adjudications and reopening closed cases unlawfully traps legal residents in perpetual uncertainty.[1][7]

On August 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit split the difference in the ongoing legal battle over these policies. In a unanimous order, the appellate panel granted a partial stay in the case Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, allowing the government to resume its "Comprehensive Re-Review Policy" while the broader appeal proceeds.[1][5]

However, the First Circuit declined DHS's emergency request to reinstate the rest of its sweeping immigration restrictions. The court refused to stay the lower court's vacatur of the "Benefits Hold Policy" and the "Country-Specific Factors Policy," meaning U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) remains legally barred from pausing new adjudications or automatically treating a travel-ban nationality as a negative factor in its decision-making.[2]

The reinstated Comprehensive Re-Review Policy carries immediate consequences for thousands of immigrants. Under this directive, USCIS officers are authorized to conduct additional reviews of previously approved immigration benefit requests—including asylum, permanent residency, and work permits—for individuals from 40 designated "high-risk" countries.[3][7]

The re-review specifically targets foreign nationals from these jurisdictions who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021, or whose immigration benefits were approved on or after that date. If the agency determines during this secondary review that an individual no longer meets the criteria under the heightened scrutiny, their legal status could be revoked.[2][6]

The appellate order alters the landscape established just two months prior. On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island struck down the entire suite of USCIS policies. The district court ruled that the agency had exceeded its statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act by implementing the sweeping changes without formal notice-and-comment rulemaking.[3][5]

Following the June vacatur, USCIS briefly announced it would comply with the order and resume processing the backlog of frozen applications. However, DHS simultaneously filed a Notice of Appeal with the First Circuit, seeking an emergency stay to keep the policies active while the appellate process played out, arguing that the lower court's injunction posed a risk to national security.[1][3]

For corporate mobility teams and employment counsel, the First Circuit's partial stay introduces significant operational hurdles. Businesses employing nationals from the affected countries must now account for the possibility that an employee's previously approved work authorization could be subjected to a sudden re-review and potential revocation, complicating long-term workforce planning.[4]

Legal experts are advising affected individuals to remain vigilant. Foreign nationals who fall under the scope of the re-review policy and receive a Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) or a Request for Evidence (RFE) from USCIS are urged to seek immediate legal counsel, as the reinstated policy allows the agency to actively reverse prior approvals.[5][6]

The First Circuit's decision serves as an interim posture rather than a final resolution on the merits of the policies. The court will continue to review the government's appeal in the coming months, a process that will ultimately determine whether the district court's judgment is upheld, modified, or entirely reversed, potentially setting the stage for a Supreme Court showdown over executive immigration authority.[1][4]